Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget

[SmootSmack]

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

[CRedskinsRule]

85% cuts, 15% taxes. here ya go : my plan based on their choices of course

[Chico23231]

Very cool...I ended "solving" it with 77% spending cuts and 23% tax

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

85% cuts, 15% taxes. here ya go : my plan based on their choices of course

So you cut Federal Employee pay and reduce the federal workfoce but don't cut federal contractors? The Gov't pays the contractors more than it pays it's own employees. I would just cut the contractors out and leave the rest of it alone.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Angry

So you cut Federal Employee pay and reduce the federal workfoce but don't cut federal contractors? The Gov't pays the contractors more than it pays it's own employees. I would just cut the contractors out and leave the rest of it alone.

When you roll in benefits and managing govt employees, contractors make more sense. Plus they are must easier to be done with then said govt employee.

[MTK]

Cut the shit out of the military, that goes pretty far all on it's own. Of course it won't happen for obvious reasons.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Angry

So you cut Federal Employee pay and reduce the federal workfoce but don't cut federal contractors? The Gov't pays the contractors more than it pays it's own employees. I would just cut the contractors out and leave the rest of it alone.

I have seen some govt workers, and some contractors. I know the govt pays more to contractors, but IMO they get a lot better effort out of the contractors. That's not true in every single case, but a govt worker knows he/she has benefits and usually LOOOONG term employment, where as the contractors reasonably ofter have to re-bid and prove their competitiveness.

Also, and this is hard to explain, I fundamentally believe in small govt. I think that's known. IF we reduce by cutting contractors we do two things we make the equivalent govt workers jobs more stable, and thus promote more institutionalized govt, AND we reduce the competition around any given govt function. IF we reduce by cutting govt jobs, we increase the competition in the market place (assuming that the best of the cut workers would go to the contracting companies and compete for those jobs) and we create a more flexible and small central govt that can hire contractors as needed, or fire them if they get lazy or uncompetitive.

Also when you say it pays contractors more are you including the levels of benefits that many govt workers get in that? I don't know that stat so it is a honest question. I tend to think that the contractor may get paid more straight up, but then they have to turn around and cover their employees benefits.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Cut the shit out of the military, that goes pretty far all on it's own. Of course it won't happen for obvious reasons.

That was a huge part of my solution. It ought to happen, but I agree that it won't.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I have seen some govt workers, and some contractors. I know the govt pays more to contractors, but IMO they get a lot better effort out of the contractors. That's not true in every single case, but a govt worker knows he/she has benefits and usually LOOOONG term employment, where as the contractors reasonably ofter have to re-bid and prove their competitiveness.

Also, and this is hard to explain, I fundamentally believe in small govt. I think that's known. IF we reduce by cutting contractors we do two things we make the equivalent govt workers jobs more stable, and thus promote more institutionalized govt, AND we reduce the competition around any given govt function. IF we reduce by cutting govt jobs, we increase the competition in the market place (assuming that the best of the cut workers would go to the contracting companies and compete for those jobs) and we create a more flexible and small central govt that can hire contractors as needed, or fire them if they get lazy or uncompetitive.

Also when you say it pays contractors more are you including the levels of benefits that many govt workers get in that? I don't know that stat so it is a honest question. I tend to think that the contractor may get paid more straight up, but then they have to turn around and cover their employees benefits.

You have some valid ideas but also some misguided ones. First off, I am a contractor in a position that should be a government position. I am not going to get into the reason why though.

My company gets paid a hell of a lot of money to provide my services to the customer. I see less than half of the percentage that gets forked out for me. Yes, my employer does provide whatever health insurance he deems suitable. The guy is cheap though so it's not all that great. In the end the guy who owns the company bank rolls much of the money that he is compensated for my services.

If the government were to take my position and turn it into a government one, they could offer me a substantial pay raise with standard Gov't benefits and still save anywhere from 30% to 50% of what they were paying for me.

I work with contractor and civilian alike everyday and effort is dependent upon the person. We all get complacent from time to time and all of us can still get fired. Yes, it is harder to fire the civilian, but not impossible.

I like small gov't too, however there are just some jobs that too sensitive for some bidding contractor to be performing on a rotating basis. With the government employee I believe that you have more loyalty and more control over information spillage.

BTW, my wife is Gov't and I don't think that she should lose her job or take a decrease in pay before they get rid of all the contractors mooching off of the government first.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Angry

So you cut Federal Employee pay and reduce the federal workfoce but don't cut federal contractors? The Gov't pays the contractors more than it pays it's own employees. I would just cut the contractors out and leave the rest of it alone.

That statement is totally wrong.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Angry

You have some valid ideas but also some misguided ones. First off, I am a contractor in a position that should be a government position. I am not going to get into the reason why though.

My company gets paid a hell of a lot of money to provide my services to the customer. I see less than half of the percentage that gets forked out for me. Yes, my employer does provide whatever health insurance he deems suitable. The guy is cheap though so it's not all that great. In the end the guy who owns the company bank rolls much of the money that he is compensated for my services.

If the government were to take my position and turn it into a government one, they could offer me a substantial pay raise with standard Gov't benefits and still save anywhere from 30% to 50% of what they were paying for me.

I work with contractor and civilian alike everyday and effort is dependent upon the person. We all get complacent from time to time and all of us can still get fired. Yes, it is harder to fire the civilian, but not impossible.

I like small gov't too, however there are just some jobs that too sensitive for some bidding contractor to be performing on a rotating basis. With the government employee I believe that you have more loyalty and more control over information spillage.

BTW, my wife is Gov't and I don't think that she should lose her job or take a decrease in pay before they get rid of all the contractors mooching off of the government first.

Federal Employees Continue to Prosper | Cato @ Liberty

[firstdown]

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts - USATODAY.com

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I have seen some govt workers, and some contractors. I know the govt pays more to contractors, but IMO they get a lot better effort out of the contractors. That's not true in every single case, but a govt worker knows he/she has benefits and usually LOOOONG term employment, where as the contractors reasonably ofter have to re-bid and prove their competitiveness.

Also, and this is hard to explain, I fundamentally believe in small govt. I think that's known. IF we reduce by cutting contractors we do two things we make the equivalent govt workers jobs more stable, and thus promote more institutionalized govt, AND we reduce the competition around any given govt function. IF we reduce by cutting govt jobs, we increase the competition in the market place (assuming that the best of the cut workers would go to the contracting companies and compete for those jobs) and we create a more flexible and small central govt that can hire contractors as needed, or fire them if they get lazy or uncompetitive.

Also when you say it pays contractors more are you including the levels of benefits that many govt workers get in that? I don't know that stat so it is a honest question. I tend to think that the contractor may get paid more straight up, but then they have to turn around and cover their employees benefits.

I won't argue deeply into it.

Maybe my point is better said like this: a govt employee is intrinsically tied to a larger govt, a contractor while wanting govt money can turn to a commercial market to increase their profits.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

And we're done.

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

All that being done, I would implement the FairTax which would increase the tax base and provide an immediate jump start to the economy.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Federal Employees Continue to Prosper | Cato @ Liberty

1. Goverrnment employees should be compensated well. Trust me they still won't become rich.

2. Most of them live in high cost living areas. So while on average they make more than private counterparts they are actually compensated properly for the type of work that they do in the area that they live in.

3. Contractors still eat up more tax dollars than the federal employees do.